ArticleEplasty2014
Evaluation of options for large scalp defect reconstruction: a 12-year experience.
Article in Eplasty, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Management of Locally Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Scalp: A Case Report and Literature Review.Cureus · 2023Article
- Full- or Split-Thickness Skin Grafting in Scalp Surgery? Retrospective Case Series.World journal of plastic surgery · 2019Article
- Free Tissue Reconstruction of the Scalp.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2019Review
- Immediate Near-Total Scalp Reconstruction with Artificial Dermis on Exposed Calvarium.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2016Article
- Invasive Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Scalp and Calvarium: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Eplasty · 2016Article
- Lower Trapezius Flap for Reconstruction of Posterior Scalp and Neck Defects after Complex Occipital-Cervical Surgeries.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2015Article
- Invasive Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Scalp.Eplasty · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMultiple options for reconstruction of scalp defects exist with local tissue advancement and free tissue transfer the mainstay of reconstruction. Over the last 12 years, our tertiary referral hospital has performed more than 150 scalp reconstructions. We reviewed our experience with large scalp defects and evaluated whether free tissue transfer is a viable first option for reconstruction.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted of all scalp reconstructions from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2011. A cohort of patients with defects greater than 50 cm(2) were identified for a total of 64 operations; 10 free flaps, 28 local advancement flaps, and 26 skin grafts. Reoperation rates and complications were compared between groups.
resultsReoperation rate in the free flap group was 20% (2/10). Both reoperations were within the immediate postoperative period, one for microvascular thrombotic occlusion and the other for postoperative hematoma. The local tissue transfer group had a 14% reoperation rate (4/28), all for debridement of partial flap loss. The skin graft cohort had a 12% reoperation rate (3/26) for 1 complete and 2 partial skin graft failures; all required repeat grafting. Reoperation for free-flap complications did not require rehospitalization. In contrast, the skin graft and non-free flap reoperations frequently required rehospitalization.
conclusionThough free tissue transfer has a higher occurrence of reoperation within the immediate postoperative period, completion of reconstruction usually occurs within a single hospitalization. Free tissue transfer is a feasible option, and we advocate for its use as a primary method for repairing large scalp defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24567771PMC3931441What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.